You misunderstand than. For example, I think Obama's foreign policy continues to be wrong, we should be out of Iraq and Iran. I think he did not try hard enough to keep lobbiests out of government positions. I think he should have cleaned house at the MMS before the oil spill. I think he gave BP too much leeway in the oil spill and he should have better accepted foreign help. He should have done a better job with shutting down Gitmo. I don't think the stimulus was big enough, especially with deflationary pressure on the economy today. I think he should have done a better job cleaning out the banks and gm during the crisis. He should have been more aggressive with the public option.
There is lots of stuff I don't like about what Obama is doing. So again, I think you are missing the point. I am not attempting to absolve Obama from blame, but I also don't think Bush should be either.
You think all of today's problems started since 2007?
There is lots of stuff I don't like about what Obama is doing. So again, I think you are missing the point. I am not attempting to absolve Obama from blame, but I also don't think Bush should be either.
Nope...I have said for I dont know how many times...our problems have been going on for as long as the democrats and republicans have been spending money like it was theirs. However...if you want to blame Bush, then you HAVE to have enough integrity to admit that for the last 4 years, the DEMOCRATS...not George Bush...have passed every spending bill...every regulation act, every peice of legislation on which Bush AND Obama has put pen to paper.
Like the good Rev has pointed out...I simply dont see ANYONE saying Bush was without fault. I DO see people saying yes...but regardless...Dood is the PRESIDENT now and this impotent blame everything on Bush tactic is a miserable FAIL. So the PREMISE of your thread...that posters absolve Bush of HIS responsibility...is flawed.
I agree we should place blame where it is due. Seems thought the current admin gets a pass for what the previous one did with some though in my observation.
I have to agree that there are quite a few morons out there who believe that Obama can do no wrong. However, I also find that there are many in the Republican party who have completely different standards for Obama than they had for Bush.
I am completely in favor of holding Obama accountable to deliver on campaign promises. So, for instance, the fact that GITMO still hasn't been closed, and we are still holding suspects without access to legal counsel, and may even be torturing people is EXTREMELY bothersome to me. As is the fact that we still don't have clear goals/objectives in A-stan or Iran, and no real exit plan.
However, I don't really believe that Obama can be blamed in entirety for our massive debtload and economic woes. Those were already far advanced by the time he was elected, and could hardly be corrected in 18 months. In other words, we didn't get here overnight, and we aren't going to get things turned around overnight, either.
Obama is significantly better, in almost every way, than Bush. However, there seems to be little recognition of this fact from most conservatives.
how is he better in almost every way? he tripled the debt, gitmo is still open, wiretapps, fbi searches, taxes going up, still in a-stan (which is not going well, I am sad to say), iraq, etc. There is little policy wise different than the two and to state that we don't recognize your opinion as fact seems a little odd. :shrug:
Obama is significantly better, in almost every way, than Bush. However, there seems to be little recognition of this fact from most conservatives.
Sure I will admit that. I don't see your point in bringing it up since our problems started before 2007. Heck some of our current problems happened under Clinton's watch or even before that.
This is a point I disagree with. A president's power to address problems are often limited. If he were king, I would agree with you
Now the OP...
In various threads, whenever the mistakes of Bush are brought up, some people always seem to want to bury the past and act like it never happened so they can blame everything on Obama instead..
OK...so if the presidents power is limited (I agree) then it isnt very realistic to BLAME Bush then ...so those that apparently do that (which again...I dont really see) shouldnt have a REASON to. And I also dont blame Obama for all the countries problems (my reason for pointing out that it is the legislative branch who writes legislation). I blame Obama for his lack of leadership. I blame him for whining about nothing being his fault. I blame him for the race baiting tactics. I blame him for HIS stuff...just like I blamed Bush for his.
So, in your opinion, how effective is this strategy?
I think a president can muck things up more easily than they can fix it and their capacity for damage is greater than their capacity to fix things. Its the nature of the office I think.
For example, lets look at Gitmo. Setting up the place was relatively easy, shutting the place down is proving to be very difficult. Its the same with the wars, wire taps etc. One of our problems with the way the government is currently set up is each time a new territory is opened up, it can be hard to close it back down again. This is one of the reasons why your leadership argument doesn't work for me.
Zyphlin, at least you're capable of enumerating what you don't like about Obama's policies. That's considerably more rationality than we usually get from the Obama haters.
I hate that Bush embroiled us in a landwar in Asia. I hate that Bush dismantled constitutional protections, corporate accountability, and vested significantly more power in the executive branch. I hate that he mired us in more debt than we'd ever seen before.
In general, while Obama has failed to deliver on some campaign promises, I think he is in a difficult position of not being able to make some of the changes he promised as quickly as he may have believed he'd be able to make them. I'm troubled by the areas where he potentially COULD have made changes, and hasn't, for reasons I don't entirely understand.
However, he's not the person who embroiled us in two wars, simultaneously. Getting out of those wars is going to be significantly more complicated than it was to get us into them, it appears. On that measure, ALONE, he's better. He hasn't started any new wars.
I remember that Bush wanted to shut down GITMO as well, but he realized it was just probably not going to happen.
Obama probably realized the same thing, but he could campaign on that issue anyway and it was a major sticking point as we all saw. Smart move really, until it comes time to actually shut it down.
I have to agree that there are quite a few morons out there who believe that Obama can do no wrong. However, I also find that there are many in the Republican party who have completely different standards for Obama than they had for Bush.
I am completely in favor of holding Obama accountable to deliver on campaign promises. So, for instance, the fact that GITMO still hasn't been closed, and we are still holding suspects without access to legal counsel, and may even be torturing people is EXTREMELY bothersome to me. As is the fact that we still don't have clear goals/objectives in A-stan or Iran, and no real exit plan.
However, I don't really believe that Obama can be blamed in entirety for our massive debtload and economic woes. Those were already far advanced by the time he was elected, and could hardly be corrected in 18 months. In other words, we didn't get here overnight, and we aren't going to get things turned around overnight, either.
Obama is significantly better, in almost every way, than Bush. However, there seems to be little recognition of this fact from most conservatives.
I don't remember Bush wanting to do that, but if he did, than my opinion of him will go up.
My guess is that he did not realize how hard it would be until he won the election and start taking on the job.
I don't view Bush embroiling us in a land war in Asia as a negative. I don't even blame him for doing it initially, which was Afghanistan. While I think Iraq was horribly handled, I don't have an issue with its invasion in theory.
And similarly, I'm troubled by the fact that Obama isn't changing this.The powers of the executive and growing it, that I will give you. However I would not put him “significantly” ahead of Obama on that simply because Obama is reinforcing them every step of the way.
That is absolutely too, he did not get us into the war. And getting out is almost always more difficult. However, again, I do not see him “better” here. As I said, getting into the wars is not something I have an issue with…its how they’ve been carried out. And on that, Obama’s been no better than Bush, just different imho.
I give Obama props for what he has done right...but the only thing I have seen him be 'right' on is his efforts in combating domestic terrorism. Of course Obama cant be blamed for the 14 trillion dollar debt...but he can be blamed for upping it 4 trillion in just 2 years (or, like Bush any budget deficits he authorizes). I dont know how we can consider an increase in unemployment and a stagnant economy as a success, nor the stagnant war effort a success. certainly the gulf oil debacle is a nightmare. Id be THRILLED and I mean that if his policies spelled economic success...and I will eat my words if they are successful. but you CANT spend your way out of a recession when you are just spending on social handout programs. and Im just not seeing the growth potential. I hope I am wrong.
I think a president can muck things up more easily than they can fix it and their capacity for damage is greater than their capacity to fix things. Its the nature of the office I think.
For example, lets look at Gitmo. Setting up the place was relatively easy, shutting the place down is proving to be very difficult. Its the same with the wars, wire taps etc. One of our problems with the way the government is currently set up is each time a new territory is opened up, it can be hard to close it back down again. This is one of the reasons why your leadership argument doesn't work for me.
I don't know. I think the recession was serious enough that without some federal spending, we might have remained mired in it for years. I don't know if his policies will succeed, only that I think that something needed to be done. I'm not a fan of directed dollars for specific companies, though, and the original bailout was spearheaded by Bush. Employment was already taking a nosedive under Bush, so that's nothing new, that's just part of the financial mess that Obama inherited.
What is the objection to the existence of GITMO??? We have terrorists...not enemy combatants, not soldiers in a war...TERRORISTS...people that have been through multiple vetting processes and been determined to be the most dangerous of the most dangerous....
Im not even opposed to government spending...but in order for it to be effective it has to be attached to a COMMODITY which then brings about jobs. Thats kind of the problem I have with all our social spending that the fed is doing now. They arent creating jobs...they arent bringing about the creation of jobs.
And I still believe the Bush bank bailouts were a bad idea...and I dont think the crash has been avoided...just delayed. The housing market HAS to crash. As unhappy as that may be...it HAS to. Housing costs have to be allowed to correct. thats not going to happen as long as things are maintainted at an artificially high level.
Seriously...and this is just us talking now...no conservative...no liberal...just two people...
What is the objection to the existence of GITMO??? We have terrorists...not enemy combatants, not soldiers in a war...TERRORISTS...people that have been through multiple vetting processes and been determined to be the most dangerous of the most dangerous...and we cant bring them to the US to face trial and we cant send them anywhere eles and we certainly cant risk just letting them go...so what is the problem with detaining these people indefinitely until they are no longer of intelligence value or represent a threat to the US?
I honestly believe peoples objections to GITMO are purely a kneejerk response to Geroge Bush. How many people are up in arms about the fact that Obama is doing the SAME THING...denying constitutional rights and keeping people in American prisons in Afghanistan? Seriously...the answer to that question is few if any even give a ****. because...oh yeah...they are TERRORISTS...
Seriously...and this is just us talking now...no conservative...no liberal...just two people...
What is the objection to the existence of GITMO??? We have terrorists...not enemy combatants, not soldiers in a war...TERRORISTS...people that have been through multiple vetting processes and been determined to be the most dangerous of the most dangerous...and we cant bring them to the US to face trial and we cant send them anywhere eles and we certainly cant risk just letting them go...so what is the problem with detaining these people indefinitely until they are no longer of intelligence value or represent a threat to the US?
I honestly believe peoples objections to GITMO are purely a kneejerk response to Geroge Bush. How many people are up in arms about the fact that Obama is doing the SAME THING...denying constitutional rights and keeping people in American prisons in Afghanistan? Seriously...the answer to that question is few if any even give a ****. because...oh yeah...they are TERRORISTS...
Obama was placed in a very bad situation no doubt. Has he made mistakes, yes, no doubt. But are all of this country's problems Obama's fault, no. Bush did leave alot of baggage, and its hard to ignore that, even if the right would like too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?